Michael
and actually, the paradox of knowing everything and being able to do anything (except be wrong, learn, be surprised, and etc...) has further hemmed this God thing in till where now some theists just know this
Indeed - you'd think they'd try and resolve that before moving on, but then of course when they can't resolve an issue they tend to just ignore it.
Norsefire
And this is what it is based on: possibilities. Our universe had a beginning, we know this, and we also know the only two possibilities, logically, are that it was "created" or it came to be on its own accord (natural).
This is actually the same problem many make. A universe existing for a finite amount of time does not equate to or justify that the universe had a beginning. Modern cosmology agrees with this position. Remember, we can only explain with any precision what happened after planck time.
This is why the question of a Creator is still valid.
Incorrect. As explained earlier, adding entities that don't solve the issue is completely without value. You will find, if we make this a very large discussion, that intelligent creators make the entire thing that much more problematic. Of course this is somewhat going off topic so perhaps that is better left for a different one.
This suggests that "existence" is eternal.
Not exactly. I, note: not being a cosmologist, would personally opt for uncaused beginnings - and interestingly we do know of things that are uncaused but have a beginning. The thing is of course that WLC and others assert from their position within the universe that everything that has a beginning must be caused. This, as pointed out by Tremblay, is a fallacy of composition, (
"to infer a necessary causality on a whole – the universe – on the basis of observation of such attribute in the parts – the existents around us")
For instance, if we assume that the multi-verse theory is correct, and there are an infinite amount of universes, surely one of them was created?
Under what basis does one add entities? Let's be frank, the supernatural is an addition that can only be added once
every natural possibility has been exhausted. When you start finding dead people with "bites" on their necks you would go through the animal world, human killers etc etc and only once all those possibilities are shown false do you even think of positing vampires. Unfortunately there are those that like to posit the supernatural before anything else - which is ultimately pointless. I would of course have much less of an issue with it if it actually solved anything - but it doesn't. When someone asserts a 'creator' we wind up with no less problems than we have without it, indeed
more.
Or, we could say, "why bring nature into the equation?"
No you couldn't. 'Nature' is the
natural and default state of things. Anything beyond that, (supernatural = beyond nature), is the addition.
All I can assert based on logics, is that it is possible that our universe came to be intentionally, based on the actions of some force of thought or consciousness.
Such thoughts are without any value. It is
possible that there is an invisible monkey parading naked around New York right now. While from an absolute sense the "possible" is correct, (unless we can know absolutes - I contend, quite rightly, that we can't), but the actual claim is without any value whatsoever, (and merely goes to create even more problems).
Greenberg
How are we not looking at individual properties??
What else is there, other than of course the viewer's own inclinations or disinclinations toward particular entities?
Explained earlier but I shall try again:
When one likens a god to the tooth fairy, (etc), they are not making a comparison on what they do, (god and the tooth fairy both take teeth from under pillows), or what they are, (they're both fairies), but simply that:
They are both claimed existing entities that have no evidence to support the claim to their existence.
Regards,
